|
|
avik_d Veteran user Targetting a Zillion, till now just 304 Posts |
Hi Friends,
Recently myself along with one of my friends carried out an experiment on something.I was not sure whether to post this in this forum or not. But because whatever we did involved mostly coin gaffs, I decided to post this here. As we all know, there is this purist school of coin magic (or any magic whatsoever, concentrating on coin for now), who take pride in never using gaffs. On the other hand, we have performers who heavily rely on gaffs, the argument being that gaffs provide a much "cleaner" display. And there's this third group of people (I count myself among them), who resort to a middle path, fusing sleights and gaffs as and when required. We know of a lot of routines which may be performed with sleights alone, and can be carried out fine with gaffs. Myself along with the friend of mine (who has been performing professionally for long) decided to pick one routine, which has more "means" to execute to achieve the same "end". We ended on 3 fly. We chose random audiences from our workplaces, our guests at the local magic gathering, friends, families, all the while ensuring that we can contact them after the performance, may be after a gap of a week or so. For the same viewer, each of us performed 3 fly, my friend doing it with gaffs, and myself with pure sleights. The routine consisted of 3 phases: Production of three coins, 3-fly, and disappearance of three coins. I used four kennedy halves, the only concealment used being the CP, FP, and ditching in my pockets. My friend used two keneddy halves, and an expanded [ with a split insert. As per our studies, there were quite a few marked differences between the two routines (obviously from a magicians viewpoint...you can guess the difference between me showing one coin and hiding the another in CP, and my friend showing "one" coin nested inside the expanded [ on his open palm). Our performances went well, and the viewers reacted equally. We categorically recorded their reactions during the performances, and also their recalling of the effects after 7 days, when we interviewed them again. We found them to have remembered only the routine structure (when asked them to describe what they saw, they clearly remembered and recalled : "you plucked a few coins, three I guess, from thin air, and tossed them from one hand to another, and we couldn't freaking saw how they traveled, and then you vanished all three of them"). When we asked if they noticed anything different between our performances, the answer was unanimous: "Nope !!" what we concluded from this experiment, and wanted to share with my friends in this forum was that when the focus is on the magic, the routine, and the flow of the performance, the method remains oblivious. The viewers just watched us carrying out a miracle. It's the miracle that matters, not how it's done. We magicians may write a 1000 page book with the differences between a split and a flipper, but when performance matters, the viewers are not in a situation to judge which one was "cleaner". I think our effort to make a routine "cleaner and fairer" with the use of gaffs lies only within our minds, since we're gradually getting into this habit of thinking like magicians, and not like our viewers. Of course, gaffs sometimes help us to overcome the know-it-all-smarta**-guys, hecklers in short, who think they know everything about magic (or everything that defies explanation for that matter). But for the people who are there to be entertained, they only enjoy the end, and never give a thought to the means. It doesn't mean that I myself will quit using gaffs, as I enjoy using gaffs as well as I do enjoy doing sleights. But the outcome of this survey was indeed an interesting one. What I firmly believe is : the merit of a magic trick, or a performance, is best judged by the spectators. The decision whether a trick is good or bad should only be coming from the viewers, for whom we are performing. If the viewers enjoy a performance, then it's good. Else not. simple. Would like to know the opinions of my friends here in the Café.
Best,
-Avik |
kenedho Regular user 192 Posts |
If you conduct an experiment on a test subject going into two rooms:
- One of the two rooms have a tungsten filament light bulb on the ceiling; the other one is an LED light bulb also on the ceiling - Both rooms have very tall ceiling (so the subject cannot feel the heat of the light bulbs) - Both light bulbs have equal brightness and colour Result: Chances are the subject will not notice any difference between the light bulbs in the two rooms. This is because the test subjects do not know how much "heat" (and this is analogous to magic) the experimental objects are. The experimental objects look the same. Of course the test subjects will recall the same. But in reality they cost you different energy consumptions and hence energy bills! Hence my opinion is: the merit of a magic trick, is best judged by both the spectators and the magician. Even when the viewers enjoy a performance, as an academic in magic we should strive to come up with ways to improve the inherent methods of performing that piece of magic. The bottom line is... using gaffs could allow you to get into different routines in the middle of 3Fly easier! I think it'd be a much more fun experiment to run by seeing how many more effects you can get to (a) using 4 coins but you have to always disguise them as 3; and (b) using 2 coins + shell&insert. K. |
Ray Haining Inner circle Hot Springs, AR 1907 Posts |
You are to be commended for carrying out an actual, empirical experiment. It's an approach that could be fruitfully used for other effects and for other purposes other than determining if there is any difference in how an effect is perceived between a version using gaffs and the same effect without gaffs.
That being said, I think your conclusion--that "the merit of a magic trick, or a performance, is best judged by the spectators. The decision whether a trick is good or bad should only be coming from the viewers, for whom we are performing. If the viewers enjoy a performance, then it's good. Else not."--that conclusion is obvious to me. |
avik_d Veteran user Targetting a Zillion, till now just 304 Posts |
Quote:
On May 11, 2015, kenedho wrote: I guess you've given me another splendid subject for experimenting ! The only thing I can say here is, if the viewers receive the same amount of heat and light from the bulbs, then the only variable which remains here is the electricity power bill I have got to pay, and I'll go with the cheaper alternative (Read No-Gaff !!). However, I enjoy using gaffs, for the other good reasons you've stated, i.e. satisfaction for a magician coming from performing the routine, or versatility (I'd prefer the term "freedom") that gaffs offer. I wonder that if viewers enjoy the performance of a routine equally when done with different methods, why should we chase new methods if there's no perceptible difference from the viewer's standpoint? Might be a stupid question, but I guess it's worth thinking ! Quote:
On May 11, 2015, Ray Haining wrote: Hi Ray, Well that was the subject we focused on during the experiment, i.e. viewer perception.I guess things are pretty same when we consider how the effect is perceived by the viewer. What Kenedho suggested in his post is also another aspect of judging the merit of a routine/performance.
Best,
-Avik |
kenedho Regular user 192 Posts |
We should keep on inventing new methods, even to achieve the same effects, because that is the process that we must go through to lead to innovations.
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Quote:
On May 11, 2015, kenedho wrote: Mostly agree except of "must." "Derivative" approaches are the most popular and easiest, but non-derivative" approaches can lead to innovation as well -- and have greater intrinsic rewards. The key is that creativity is to be valued whether or not it leads to a salable or even performed effect. If we nurture the idea that magic must first occur in the performer's mind before being plunked into the spectator's awareness, then the confidence with which the performer beguiles mers)is a critical as the "gaff/no-gaff" trade off. On the OP, how do you accurately and confidently get info from an audience as to what they saw or felt? The very process of asking biases the answers and perceptions. The expectations of the audience to be tested is also critical. I applaud what you are attempting, but somewhat skeptical of any conclusions. Since we are now learning that "what is remembered" has little to do with "what was seen," we (as performers) can train the spectator as to the "story told after."
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
Quote:
On May 11, 2015, kenedho wrote: I profoundly disagree with this statement in any sense other than as referring to the joy of invention for its own sake. In the context of magic, a performing art, it is not by creating new methods that you will thrill audiences or amuse them. It is by being invisible in method that we free ourselves from method. Do you want somebody to think, "I don't know how he changed a silk into an egg, that was just ingenious!" Or do you want them to think, "Oh my goodness, he just changed a silk into an egg, that was brilliant!" Of course, if a method is inherently flawed, if you are unhappy with it for a legitimate reason, then it is vital that you improve upon i; I do not dispute that, but it should only be in the context of making a more convincing illusion, for whatever reason. |
kenedho Regular user 192 Posts |
Since we're on Trik coin trickery, here's a simple scenario.
1) Magician A uses a normal shell and practises shelling a coin silently; 2) Magician B uses a shell with teflon. (1) is not inherently flawed, not to Magician A at least. Method (1) is not inherently flawed to Magician B either, because Magician B could practise the handling on coin instead of changing the method (again, since we're in Trick coin trickery, method means mechanics of the gaff). In fact, method (2) could have been invented by Magician A, who does not need method (2) at all. Non-derivative innovations only really happen because the inventor tries to avoid all the other derivative innovations that exist. Otherwise, one cannot really conclude an innovation is non-derivative when it comes to creative performing arts. In other words, who are you to say a method is non-derivative unless there are thousands, if not millions of derivative methods out there yet none of those can derive that non-derivative method. Hence we should keep on inventing new methods, even to achieve the same effects, because that is the process that we must go through to lead to innovations. |
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
But you are arguing that 'innovation', i.e. coming up with new methods, is inherently good in of itself. It's not, and the reasoning is flawed. Think about it.
|
kenedho Regular user 192 Posts |
Quote:
On May 11, 2015, tomsk192 wrote: I am very keen and humble to hear and learn from your knowledge and opinions - would you mind to elaborate? |
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
As you are so very kind, I will ask you a question. Why do you think that innovation is key?
|
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Quote:
On May 11, 2015, kenedho wrote: Say what? This statement is contradictory. If one explores all the known methods and chooses to do something else it is derivative. No "conclusion" is required. If I create a new effect with no consideration at all of existing methods but only considering desired result then it is not "derived in any structural manner. I have developed many magic effects and sleights by this method. Later on I might discover that another person also developed the same effect or method, but my creation was still non-derivative as to source. I was not avoiding anything, nor driven to explore what had come before. I also create effects that are deliberately derivative in an attempt to improve on simplicity or to change venue of a favored sleight. Each approach has its own rewards. Ian Garrison (MagicIan) shared that of all of his marketable effects he liked the non-derivative one the best, lamenting that the more he learned of other methods the less creative he was. Noone is pretending that find an alternative presentation method of doing 3Fly is anything but derivative, but one of the sleights I use in my favorite approach was developed in non-derivative fashion 30 years before I ever heard of 3Fly or Bobo.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
Craig Ousterling Special user 585 Posts |
|
J-Mac Inner circle Ridley Park, PA 5338 Posts |
Avik,
Thanks for gauging spectator reactions and perceptions and reporting them here - always good info to have! I appreciate and applaud your efforts. Jim |
MeetMagicMike Inner circle Gainesville Fl 3501 Posts |
I would say that as long as the spectator is fooled and entertained gaffs/no gaffs doesn't matter. However the use of gaffs has practical consideration based on the venue and the performer skill level.
For instance, consider an Ace Assembly. There are many methods some with gaffs and some without. I work nightly in restaurants and much prefer non-gaffed version such as Vernon's Slow Motion Aces or JC Wagner's Whispering Queens. The big advantages are I can do these tricks with a shuffled deck in use any time any where. No gaffs to ring in and out and no concern about gaffs wearing out and looking old. The only disadvantage is that an astute spectator might notice that some cards are being seen twice. For example you might show three aces as four using an elmsley count or two as four using a rhythm count. In the restaurant the advantages far outweigh the disadvange. But lets say you are going to do an ace assembly on television or for a group of magicians. Using gaffed cards would eliminate that one disadvantage. The use of gaffed cards might also allow a less experienced performer to achieve a convincing result. (That is not to say that gaffs are only used by beginners) |
avik_d Veteran user Targetting a Zillion, till now just 304 Posts |
Quote:
On May 13, 2015, MeetMagicMike wrote: I guess you're correct in mentioning about the live restaurant version and the TV version. When you're performing on TV, there is this chance of having someone getting hold of the broadcast somehow, and analyzing it. specifically Elmsley/Rhythm counts are designed to be performed "on the spot" when you're dealing with the faces of the cards. Gaffs are surely useful in such cases. Quote:
On May 13, 2015, J-Mac wrote: Thanks Jim !! Good to see if the studies are of help to fellow performers. Quote:
On May 11, 2015, funsway wrote: I agree with you, that the test conditions were not as rigorous as they should be. This was done only to get an idea of how the spectators perceive the effect in general. As you've said, history might get distorted in their minds after a considerable gap.
Best,
-Avik |
webtech Regular user 185 Posts |
I think one way it would possibly matter was if the ungaffed version of the trik the performer actually handed out the coins for inspection before the trick was performed and the gaffed version was not. That may stand out in their minds. Maybe even make the trick more astonishing?
|
J-Mac Inner circle Ridley Park, PA 5338 Posts |
Doubtful as many do the same with gaffed coins, ringing in the gaffs after handing out the normal coins.
Jim |
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9982 Posts |
Using coins over which the audience has ownership seems to be preferable to having them examined. Any "check these out" notion may be contra-magic.
Borrowed coins or objects is best. Next best is to have spectators select the coins to be used, perhaps from large number dumped onto a plate from a purse. Even better if you appear to decide what effect to perform base don the type/size of coins selected. The difference is the Expectations of the audience and any later Anticipation that astonishment will occur. The moment any observers says to self, "I'd like to handle that coin myself" much is lost in the forming of a magical story. Even selecting coins yourself from a large pile on the table will enhance the Expectation of magic and decrease suspicion. There are many easy Sw*t*hes of a gaffs during the "handing in" process. Don't work at "nipping in the bud" and suspicion, kill it before the seed is ever planted. This can work with linking rings too, and handkerchiefs and many other props. Have spectators "own" the objects before they know they will be used in an effect -- not after.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Trick coin trickery » » An interesting Study !! (1 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |